Hollywood Heights: A Film Comparison

Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights gave birth to some of the most intense, complex, but nonetheless fascinating characters of English Literature. The actions of the residents of Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange have sparked endless debate amongst critics on the true motives for their loves, their lies, and the collision course it sets them all on. Bearing this all in mind, it is really no surprise that there have been as many as five film adaptations for the novel giving each film maker's interpretation of such great characters as Bronte's legendary Byronic hero, Heathcliffe. It was curiosity towards this great literary icon being portrayed by film legend Timothy Dalton that brought this writer to compare Bronte's work with Robert Fuest's 1970 adaptation of Wuthering Heights. A character renowned for such passion, intensity, and brutality surely should have been done justice by the actor who first colored James Bond a darker shade and introduced such a deliciously evil villain as Simon Skinner. Did Dalton succeed as Heathcliff? Did the rest of the film serve as an accurate adaptation as well as provide believable interpretations of Bronte's characters? The answer is a complex one, for while the film works decently (though incomplete) as an adaptation, it suffers the disease that commonly afflicts all film adaptations of major literary works: it's too Hollywood. Changes were made to the original version of the story for the sake of maintaining a film that could be more marketable to the public.

There are many elements to the film that made if feel separate from the book. Perhaps the most noticeable to those that have read the novel is that the entire second half of the book is left out of the film. Fuest chose to end his film by having Heathcliffe die by Hindley's assassination attempt (which failed and turned out miserably for Hindley in the novel) following Catherine's funeral. There are several reasons for doing this; One being to prevent the film from running on to long. A book as long and complex as Wuthering Heights can only be done justice in it's entirety if it is longer then two hours. In the 70's, however, this was considered too long for people to sit through a movie, especially one in which the story is about advancing the characters, not the plot. The concept of the mini-series was still in its infancy at the time and even by today's standards that would be the preferred method of adapting the story to a screen. The film even takes the liberty of removing Lockwood as a character and a narrator for length's sake and has Nelly narrate mostly just the exposition.

Another reason for ending the film where it did is that it completely leaves out the story of the second generation of the Height's residents. This leaves out the young Heathcliffe-like son of Hindley, Hareton, the sickly son of Heathcliffe, Linton, and the daughter of Catherine by the same name. According to the novel; all of said characters were supposed to serve as the new love triangle juxtaposed between the Heights and the Grange as well as between the savage and the domestic. It also provides more victims for Heathcliffe to carry out his manipulative vengeance in the wake of his previously fallen adversaries. The film makers might have done this to leave out the element of incest that would follow with Catherine falling for both of her cousins (an action that would not have gone over well with a 70's audience). It is also likely that this was done to preserve Heathcliffe's rather shaky label as the film's protagonist. For if he lives on past Catherine's death like in the novel, it will only be to further his revenge with it being all he has left to do with his life. The film loses audience appeal if there is no redeemable character to relate to at the end of the story. This way, Heathcliffe dies at the end a romantic hero and a martyr, who wants nothing else then to be reunited with his dead love.

While carrying out the purpose of simplifying the story for a big screen, the deletion of the second generation gives the audience another point of intrigue as well as more drama for the plot. Young Catherine, Hareton Earnshaw, and Linton Heathcliffe literally never live to see the light of day. In the film, Hareton dies soon after his mother out of Hindley's negligence, while Baby Catherine dies with her mother in childbirth. Whether Heathcliffe's son is born or not is inconsequential without his Father around to abuse him, or a love triangle with Catherine and Hareton to round out. It is interesting that Fuest chose to keep the pregnancies of the story mostly intact even though the children never leave the womb that way. This could be to emphasize the "curse" that is mentioned by both Mrs. Earnshaw as well as Edgar that Heathcliffe has been said to have brought to their lands according to the film version. Given some of the supernatural elements of both the film and the novel's story, it should not be ruled out that the miscarriages could serve as an effect of Healthcliffe's revenge on Hindley and Catherine. The film makes sure to make note that with the death of both Hindley's wife and son, Heathcliffe revels in his tormentor's agony and gradual downfall. It also points out that the child that Catherine dies miscarrying may have very well been Heathcliffe's and not Edgar's. By removing the second generation completely from the film, as well as Heathcliffe, the film makers create not so much a glimmer of hope for the future that is hinted at with the union of Hareton and Young Catherine in the novel, but more of a purging fire that has taken out all of the main characters from the Heights. This allows the supporting players that have survived their encounters with Heathcliffe the opportunity to go back to their respective homes and start back at neutral. This leaves the audience with characters that have chances at reconciliation at the end of the film and don't need the introduction of a second generation to do it. For example, Isabella (eloped wife of Heathcliff and sister to Edgar) now has the opportunity to return home to the Grange and repair her relationship with her brother, rather then flee with child to another city and die as in the novel. Nelly can escape her literary fate of status-quo servant and can return to the Heights and nurse the surviving Hindley back to sobriety (maybe even explore those feelings she has for him that the film hinted at).

The fact that Heathcliffe lived and died as the film's hero felt a little too Hollywood as well. The strength of his character comes from his ambiguous nature. He is both a creature of nature but also a powerful socialite. He has a cold and vengeful heart, but only because he partook of and lost the most intense and passionate love. Dalton's performance was how I pictured Heathcliffe as I read the story and was not disappointed in his pulling off both a quiet savage followed by a confident social climber. The problem felt was that Heathcliffe in this particular film felt too victimized during his youth and therefore too deserving of his revenge. He suffers a merciless beating at the hands of Hindley in the film to top off all the injustices he had done to him. He even promises at the beginning of the film to love only Catherine and to never leave her unless she betrays him. These actions that the screenwriters added create a foreshadowing contract that each of these characters are going to get exactly what is coming to them when they mistreat Heathcliffe which makes his on-screen revenge all the more legit. This combined with the lack of a second generation to wreck havoc on keeps the viewers from seeing the extent of his sinister nature.

Robert Fuest's interpretation of Wuthering Heights pays enough attention to the core generation that their story and their complex character interactions serve as a somewhat accurate adaptation of Bronte's novel. However by leaving out the other half of the story, the viewers lose another window by which to judge the actions of Heathcliffe, the star character. In doing so, his nature becomes less morally ambiguous which was the biggest attraction of the novel. It is then left up to the audience if Hollywood's version is attractive enough for the screen.